As is well-known, the U.S. House represents by population, while the
Senate gives two seats per state.  If senators aimed to advance their
constituents' narrow self-interest, you would expect that *per-capita*,
low-population states would get more federal money.  After all, low-
population states have the same number of House members per capita as
anyway else (rounding aside), and far more Senators per capita.

I just came across a table showing "winner" and "donor" states,
comparing federal taxes paid by a state with federal benefits received. 
On the surface, it does seem like low-population states are
over-represented in the "winner" states, and vice versa.  

Does anyone know of more systematic evidence on this point?
                        Prof. Bryan Caplan                
       Department of Economics      George Mason University      [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  "Philosophical problems can be compared to locks on safes, 
   which can be opened by dialing a certain word or number, 
   so that no force can open the door until just this word
   has been hit upon, and once hit upon any child can open it."
       --Ludwig Wittgenstein, *Philosophical Occasions*

Reply via email to